This article contains content used from author: Brother Peter Dimond of Most Holy Family Monastery / mostholyfamilymonastery.com

Father Anthony Cekada claims to be a “traditionalist”Catholic priest and author who runs a chapel in
Ohio. He is the author of a work called “Work of Human Hands”.

Born in 1951, Anthony Cekada studied at St. Francis Roman
Catholic Seminary College in Milwaukee, graduating with a Bachelor’s degree in
Theology in 1973. In 1975 he entered St. Pius X Seminary in Ecône, Switzerland,
completed his studies, and was ordained priest in the traditional Roman
Catholic rite of ordination by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1977 for the
Society of St. Pius X.

In 1983 Fr. Cekada along with eight other priests broke with
the Society
of St. Pius X (SSPX) and formed the Society
of St. Pius V (SSPV), headed by then Fr. Clarence Kelly. In 1989
Father Cekada also left the SSPV and he moved to Cincinnati, where he now
assists with “pastoral” work at St. Gertrude the Great Traditional Roman
Catholic Church (sedevacantist). Fr.
Cekada is also a well-known and convinced sedevacantist, believing the papal
claimants of the Second Vatican Council to have been illegitimate pontiffs.

Unfortunately, Fr. Anthony
Cekada’s is a notorious heretic on several counts. As we will see, he denies
the Salvation
Dogma. He heretically believes
that certain men who live and die worshipping false gods and practicing false
religions can be in the way of salvation and be saved. He publicly denounce
“Feeneyites” (i.e., those who believe that only baptized Catholics can be
saved) as guilty of mortal sin. He is also a notorious heretic for teaching
Catholics can knowingly attend mass at non-Catholic churches and pray in
communion with notorious heretics or schismatics. He is also a notorious
heretic for teaching the contraception heresy of Natural
Family Planning, also known as
the Rhythm Method.

Fr. Anthony Cekada on Religious Communion with non-Catholics and Heretics

Fr. Anthony Cekada recently wrote an article called The
Grain of Incense: Sedevacantists and Una Cum Masses in which he explains
why he believes that a Catholic may not assist at a Mass where Benedict XVI is
prayed for as the pope. But what gets lost in the discussion about whether
Catholics may go to the Mass where Benedict XVI is prayed for as the pope is
the fact that the very authors promoting and writing articles on this issue are
themselves horrible heretics. The point I will attempt to demonstrate is
that there isn’t that much of a difference between the heretic Benedict XVI and
the heretic Fr. Cekada and the rest of the “traditionalist” priests and
societies.

According to Cekada, therefore, if you must not assist at a
Mass where Benedict XVI (or any of the antipopes) is prayed for as the pope,
then, if we follow Cekada’s own logic to its only reasonable conclusion, you
must not go to any place where any priest celebrating Mass is a heretic or
where a heretic is prayed for as the pope. Therefore, since Fr. Anthony Cekada (and the society he adheres to) is
a heretic and a non-Catholic (as we will prove) as is all the “traditionalist” priests
and societies we are aware of, it logically follows that you must not
go to any such a heretical priest who celebrates such a Mass or support such a
heretical society.

Most people who hold that no one
may attend any “una cum” Masses believe that you may attend the Masses of other
sedevacantist priests. But I would ask them: “Why do you believe that you
may go to a priest who is himself a heretic, as long as he doesn’t pray for a
heretic (Benedict XVI)?”

The Catholic Church’s teaching on Religious Communion with non-Catholics,
Schismatics and Heretics

The Catholic Church teaches the following concerning
religious communion with heretics and schismatics and about entering their
churches:

“How does a Catholic sin
against faith? A Catholic sins against Faith by Apostasy, heresy,
indifferentism and by taking part in non-Catholic worship.” (Catechism
of the Council of Trent, Catechism [attributed to] Pope St. Pius X and The
Baltimore Catechism)

Pope Pius VI, Charitas Quae,
April 13, 1791: “31... Keep away from all intruders, whether called
archbishops, bishops, or parish priests; do not hold communionwith them especially in divine worship.”

Pope Leo XIII, SatisCognitum
(# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as
is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont
to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church,
whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by
her authoritative Magisterium.”

The 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon
1258: “It is not permitted at all for the faithful to assist in any
active manner at or to have any part in the worship of non-Catholics.”

1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon
823: “Mass may not be said in churches of heretics or schismatics, even
though they were in the past properly consecrated or blessed.”

Council of Laodicea, 4th Century:
“No one shall pray in common with heretics and schismatics.”

1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon
2314: “All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every
heretic or schismatic: 1) Incur ipso facto [by that very fact]
excommunication…”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa
Theologica, Suppl., Part, Q. 23, Art. 1: “The other is major
excommunicationwhich deprives a man of the sacraments of the Church
and of the communion of the faithful [prayers, religious gatherings, etc.].
WHEREFORE IT IS NOT LAWFUL TO COMMUNICATE WITH ONE WHO LIES UNDER SUCH AN
EXCOMMUNICATION.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa
Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 23, Art. 3, Reply to Objection 2: “The commandment
of the Church regards spiritual matters directly, and legitimate actions as a
consequence: hence by holding communion in Divine worship[such
as with a heretic,] one acts against the commandment, and commits a mortal
sin;”

Pope Pius VIII, TraditiHumilitati
(# 4), May 24, 1829: “Jerome used to say it this way: he who eats the
Lamb outside this house [at meetinghouses of heretics] will perish
as did those during the flood who were not with Noah in the ark.”

Pope Gregory XVI, Commissumdivinitus (# 11), May 17, 1835: “Whoever eats the Lamb outside of
this house [at the meetinghouses of the heretics] is unholy.”

The Communication of Catholics
with Schismatics, Rev. Ignatius J. Szal, p 91: “On May 15, 1709, the
Holy Office forbade Catholics to hear the confession of schismatics or to
confess to them… Under no circumstances, not even in the case of necessity,
according to a response of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the
Faith on Feb. 17, 1761, was it permissible for a Catholic to confess his
sins to a schismatic priest in order to obtain absolution from him…”

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium animos,
(06/01/1928): “So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic
See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of
non-Catholics.”

Peter Dimond, “Sacraments from
Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes: “The sin is
caused by communicating with them despite (against) the Church’s prohibition...”

Council of Carthage: “One must
neither pray nor sing psalms with heretics, and whoever shall communicate
with those who are cut offfrom the communion of the Church, whether
clergy or layman: let him be excommunicated.”

III Council of Constantinople,
680-681: “If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the
Jews or the meetinghouses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let
them be deposed and deprived of communion [excommunicated]. If any bishop
or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended
from communion.”

Continuing his assay of Holy Office pronouncements, Szal
lists further decisions concerning Holy Communion. On June 17, 1839, The Sacred
Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith forbade the reception of Holy
Communion from an heretical priest. A general prohibition against
receiving any sacraments from schismatics was issued by Pope Clement VIII
(1592-1605). Benedict XIV (1740-1758) also forbade the use of the services
given by schismatics for the conferring of the sacraments.

Benedict XVI, Francis I, Fr. Cekada and almost all other
sedevacantist priests, as we will see, are arch-heretics and even antichrists
because they don’t believe that Jesus Christ, His faith, and baptism are
necessary for salvation. They wouldn’t openly admit this, but they foster the
idea that Jesus is not the only Savior. They basically all hold that men can be
saved by their desire, blood or wish. The late Marcel Lefebvre said that men
can be saved by “the practice of their religion, perhaps of what they
understand in their religion.” Catholic teaching states that the only way a
person can be put into the state of justification (the state of grace) is by
receiving the merit of Jesus Christ’s redemption in holy baptism. All who
promote salvation for people in other ways (outside this one way) are promoting
a false Christ of baptism of desire, salvation by invincible ignorance, etc.
The bottom-line is that Benedict XVI, Francis I, Cekada and virtually every
priest in the world believe that an individual practicing and dying in a false
religion can be saved. This is something that no canonized saint of the Church
ever believed or promoted. It’s a blatant denial of the dogma that without the
Catholic faith you cannot be saved. In fact, almost all of the heresies that
have been promoted by Vatican II and the last six antipopes deal with the
denial of this dogma.

The difference between Cekada, Benedict XVI and Francis is
that Cekada (and other sedevacantists priests) wouldn’t promote Judaism or encourage
the practice of Judaism or meet with Jews in ecumenical meetings. But the
bottom-line is that Benedict XVI, Francis, Cekada and almost every priest today
believe that individual Jews and others, who are practicing and dying in their
false religions, can be saved. Therefore, they’re all horrible heretics. In
fact, in the case of Cekada, he will not even let you receive the sacraments if
you hold the position that to be saved you must be “born again of water and the
Holy Ghost.”

Fr. Anthony Cekada Joins the Company of Priests he once Denounced

Thuc was a bishop for hire, a
fool’s fool, that any ambitious man could go to become a bishop or priest, be
he an “Old Catholic” heretic and schismatic, or even a man who wanted to start
his own Church. Fr. Anthony Cekada, now a Thucite priest, at one time wrote
truthfully about Bishop Thuc in his article, Two Bishops in every Garage:

“THE
PALMAR FIASCO - The three-day journey by car took Mgr. Ngo to Palmar de Troya,
a Spanish village 25 miles south of Seville. …In 1968, tales of apparitions
there began to circulate. Among the early enthusiasts was a young man named
Clemente Dominguez Gomez who organized devotions and set up a shrine in the
little town. …When Mgr. Ngo appeared in Palmar, Mr. Dominguez asked the prelate
to ordain himself and several other laymen to the priesthood, and then to
consecrate him and a few others bishops. If Mgr. Ngô had any doubts, they were
dispelled after Dominguez gave him the news that Paul VI had appeared to him by
means of ‘bilocation’ to give his approval to the project. “Pause for a moment
to consider what Mr. Dominguez was saying: both the Blessed Virgin and Paul VI
(by ‘bilocation’) were telling a Catholic bishop that he should ordain laymen
to the priesthood (whom he had just met, and who had done no ecclesiastical
studies) and then consecrate them bishops-all in three weeks time. Where anyone
else would have laughed the proposal off as absurd, Mgr. Ngô showed a truly
colossal lack of common sense and agreed… “‘OLD CATHOLIC’ CONNECTIONS - Mgr.
Ngo …moved to Toulon, France. There, in 1979, he raised to the episcopate (for
the "umpteenth time") Jean Laborie, leader of a schismatic ‘Old
Catholic’ sect, the ‘Latin Church of Toulouse.’ He also ordained another ‘Old
Catholic’ from Marseilles named Garcia, and a certain ex-convict named Arbinet
who went on later to become a Palmar ‘bishop.’ “Nor were Mgr. Ngo’s activities
limited to the consecration and ordination of schismatics. A French newsletter
which supports him states that on Holy Thursday, April 15, 1981, he
concelebrated the New Mass with Mgr. Barthe, the bishop of Toulon… “Mgr. Ngô’s
actions from 1975 onward do not inspire a great deal of confidence in his
judgment or in his prudence: the Palmar affair, the promises made and promises
broken to the Vatican, the involvement with ‘Old Catholics,’ concelebrating the
New Mass while claiming he really wasn’t, then consecrating someone [Guérard
des Lauriers] who believes the New Mass is invalid. While everyone is entitled
to a few mistakes, one is forced to say that those made by Mgr. Ngô were very
grave indeed… given Mgr. Ngo’s track record. The prelate seems to be rather
quick to make bishops-the Palmar affair comes to mind-and not particularly
fussy. In light of this, one suspects that any priest to show up on Mgr. Ngo’s
doorstep could get himself consecrated with very little difficulty and few
questions asked. in an age of instant coffee, there are now ‘instant bishops’…
“One theme which dominates the affair from beginning to end is a gross and
dangerous lack of prudence regarding the transmission of Apostolic Succession-a
matter in which the slightest lack of prudence is inadmissable. St. Paul
reminds us: ‘Lay not hands lightly on any man’ -he does not say: ‘Lay hands
quickly on anyone.’ “…The story will not end here-it is probable that ‘instant
bishops’ will continue to multiply exponentially, as among the ‘Old Catholics.’
Our missionary friend in Mexico offers us his opinion on this rather gloomy
prospect: ‘We should have within a few years hundreds or thousands of
bishops... without true vocations, the one more ignorant than the other, and an
unavoidable cause of more division among traditionalists.’” (Fr. Anthony
Cekada, Two Bishops in every Garage)

Fr. Cekada now finds himself in
the same company he once denounced, with bishops and priests who have no true
vocation, who are frauds, schismatics, and heretics, like a freak show in a
multiple ring circus. That is because Fr. Cekada was and is a heretic himself,
of the pre-Vatican II type that led to the Great Apostasy, raised and imbibed
with poison from an erroneous and heretical theology that is found in bad books
with imprimaturs many years before the robber’s Second Vatican Council.

Fr. Anthony Cekada is a notorious
heretic on several counts. He denies the Salvation Dogma. He heretically
believes that certain men who live and die worshipping false gods and
practicing false religions can be in the way of salvation and be saved. He
publicly denounce “Feeneyites” (i.e., those who believe that only baptized
Catholics can be saved) as guilty of mortal sin. He is also a notorious heretic
for teaching Catholics can knowingly attend mass at non-Catholic churches and
pray in communion with notorious heretics or schismatics. He is also a notorious
heretic for teaching the contraception heresy of Natural Family Planning, also
known as the Rhythm Method.

Fr. Cekada is proof that a
heretic—and he believes in several heresies—if he does not repent and abjure,
only falls deeper and deeper and gets blinder and blinder. He eventually joined
the Thucites and now is one their ardent defenders. He deceives his readers by
only talking of the validity of Thuc’s consecration, while ignoring the main
issue, the legality. In so doing, he puts the validity of the sacraments
before the Catholic faith and the Church’s laws, and in effect, since he is a
heretic, has denied the Catholic faith.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum
(# 9), June 29, 1896: “The Church has always regarded as rebels and expelled
from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine
different from her own. … St. Augustine notes that ‘other heresies may
spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by
the very fact cut off from Catholic unity… if any one holds to one single one
of these [heresies] he is not a Catholic’ (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n.
88).”

The Catholic Church’s Infallible Teaching on No Salvation Outside of the
Church

The following statements on
Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation are from the highest teaching
authority of the Catholic Church. They are ex cathedra Papal decrees
(decrees from the Chair of St. Peter). Therefore, they constitute the teaching
given to the Catholic Church by Jesus Christ and the Apostles. Such teachings
are unchangeable and are classified as part of the solemn magisterium (the
extraordinary teaching authority of the Catholic Church).

Pope
Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex
cathedra (infallible statement from the chair of Peter): “The Holy
Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are
outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and
schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire
which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the
Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical
body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s
sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of
piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody
can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has
shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and
unity of the Catholic Church.”

As we can see from this infallible
statement from the chair of Peter, no one at all can be saved unless they
are joined to the Church before the end of their lives. Yet, many people
today who call themselves Catholic or Christian, boldly and obstinately assert
the direct opposite of this statement and claim that protestants, heretics,
Jews, schismatics and even Pagans can attain eternal life.

Pope
Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832: “Finally some
of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men
are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may
attain eternal life.”

Pope
Eugene IV, Council of Florence, The Athanasian Creed, Sess. 8, Nov. 22,
1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above
all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate,
he will without a doubt perish in eternity.” (Decrees of the Ecumenical
Councils, Vol. 1, pp. 550-553; Denzinger 39-40.)

Pope
Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex
cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful,
outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both
priest and sacrifice.”

Pope
Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy,
Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this
Churchoutside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin…
Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that
they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman
Pontiff.”

To further show that the Sacrament
of Baptism is necessary for salvation, I will quote numerous infallible
statements from the Chair of St. Peter.

Pope
Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament
of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the
Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let
him be anathema.”

This infallible dogmatic
definition from the Chair of St. Peter condemns anyone who says that the
Sacrament of Baptism is not necessary for salvation. The Sacrament of Baptism
is necessary for all for salvation, first of all, because, as the Council of Trent
defines, all men (except the Blessed Virgin Mary) were conceived in a state of
original sin as a result of the sin of Adam, the first man. The
Sacrament of Baptism is also necessary for all for salvation because it is the
means by which one is marked as a member of Jesus Christ and incorporated into
His Mystical Body. And in defining the truth that all men were conceived in the
state of Original Sin, the Council of Trent specifically declared that the
Blessed Virgin Mary was an exception to its decree on Original Sin. But in
defining the truth that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation,
the Council of Trent made no exceptions at all.

Pope
Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439: “Holy
baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place
among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the
body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first
man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the
Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter
of this sacrament is real and natural water.”

Pope
Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex
cathedra: “But the sacrament of baptism is consecrated in water at the
invocation of the undivided Trinity – namely, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – and
brings salvation to both children and adults when it is correctly carried
out by anyone in the form laid down by the Church.”

Pope
Pius XI, Quas Primas (# 15), Dec. 11, 1925 : “Indeed this kingdom is
presented in the Gospels as such, into which men prepare to enter by doing
penance; moreover, they cannot enter it except throughfaith
and baptism, which, although an external rite, yet signifies
and effects an interior regeneration.”

We see here that one cannot enter
the kingdom of Heaven without faith and the external rite of baptism (i.e., the
Sacrament of Baptism). Ignorant people nowadays contradict this fact and claim
that people can reach heaven without a real and actual water baptism. One could
easily understand if a person were ignorant of these facts and believed that a
person or infant could be Saved without the sacrament of baptism since many
have been wrong on this issue, even Saints. But when one has seen these
infallible dogmatic declarations from the Popes, and still obstinately hold to
the position that people or infants can be saved without real and actual water
baptism, he is a heretic. A heretic is a person who obstinately, willfully and
knowingly hold an opinion which he knows to be in opposition with what the
Church teach.

Pope
Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism,
Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone shall say that real and
natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words
of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy
Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him
be anathema.”

Pope
Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “Likewise
(I profess) that baptism is necessary for salvation, and hence, if there is
imminent danger of death, it should be conferred at once and without delay, and
that it is valid if conferred with the right matter and form and intention by
anyone, and at any time.”

Catechism
of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection,
p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of
our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all
nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to
be saved.”

For a person to assert that
salvation can be attained invincibly or ignorantly by Jews, pagans, heretics or
schismatics without baptism or the Catholic Faith, is truly the most evil of
doctrine since it renders Faith in Jesus Christ and the true Catholic Faith
meaningless. According to this erroneous world view, anyone who is “good” can
attain eternal life.

Those who refuse to believe in the
dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation until they understand how
there is justice in it are simply withholding their Faith in Christ’s
revelation. Those with the true Faith in Christ (and His Church) accept His
teaching first and understand the truth in it (i.e., why it is
true) second.A Catholic does not withhold his belief in Christ’s revelation
until he can understand it.That is the mentality of a faithless heretic who
possesses insufferable pride. St. Anselm sums up the true Catholic outlook on
this point.

St.
Anselm, Doctor of the Church, Prosologion, Chap. 1: “For I do not
seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand.
For this also I believe, that unless I believed, I should not understand.”

Many people like to object against
these truths as “bitter” or “uncharitable.”But this is not true. The
“foundation of charity is faith pure and undefiled” (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium
Animos, #9). Some will also say that they cannot understand the justice
behind these infallible declarations by God through the Popes. But it is not
our job to question God’s laws and decrees. Our job is to believe first and
understand second. Yet, if one looks at this situation clearly, one can understand
the justice behind it. Adam and Eve brought death and original sin on every
human being through their sin of eating the forbidden fruit. Did they fall for
just desiring the fruit? NO! They fell after eating a real physical fruit. If
you cannot accept that all of humanity must be baptized in the name of the
Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, how can you accept that all of
humanity fell into sin because of Adam and Eve ate a physical fruit?

Here are some very relevant quotes
from the Revelations of St. Bridget that describes the power of a real baptism
and how real water must be joined to the sacrament of baptism for baptism to be
efficacious:

“The
Mother appeared again and said: “My son, you still have need of a horse and
saddle. The spiritual signification of the horse is baptism. Just as a horse
has its four legs and carries a man on the journey he must accomplish, so too
baptism, as signified by the horse, carries a man in the sight of God and has
four spiritual effects. The first effect is that the baptized are liberated
from the devil and bound to the commandments and service of God. The second
effect is that they are cleansed from original sin. The third is that they are
made God’s children and coheirs. The fourth is that heaven is opened to them.
Yet how many there are today who, having reached the age of reason, pull the
reins on the horse of baptism and ride it off on a false path! The baptismal
path is true and rightly followed when people are instructed and upheld in good
moral habits before reaching the age of reason and when, upon reaching the age
of reason and carefully considering what was promised at the baptismal font,
they keep their faith and love of God intact. However, they ride away from the
right path and rein the horse in when they prefer the world and the flesh to
God. The saddle of the horse or of baptism is the effect of the bitter passion
and death of Jesus Christ, which gave baptism its efficacy. What is water if
not an element? As soon as God’s blood was poured out, God’s word and the power
of God’s outpoured blood entered into the element. Thus, by the word of God,
the water of baptism became the means of reconciliation between humankind and
God, the gate of mercy, the expulsion of demons, the way to heaven, and the
forgiveness of sins. So those who would boast of the power of baptism should
first consider how the effect of baptism was instituted through bitter pain.
When their mind swells up with pride against God, let them consider how bitter
their redemption was, how many times they have broken their baptismal vows, and
what they deserve for their relapses into sin.” (The Revelations of St.
Bridget, Book 4, Chapter 74)

As we can read from this splendid
teaching by our Holy Mother, the water received the blood of our Lord when he
died for our sins, and that is why the water can have such a great efficacy
that it can even wash away original sin when it is used with the invocation of
the name of the Holy Trinity. Here comes another good example from St.
Bridget’s revelations about the efficacy of baptism:

Christ
describes why a three year old boy is tormented by a demon: “And even though
the boy is born by the seed of the father and mother, the devil still has the
greatest power over him, for he is not reborn through the true baptism, but is
only baptized in the way that women are accustomed to baptize, who do not know
about the words of the Holy Trinity. That is why the boy may be baptized in the
name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; then he will be cured.”

Fr. Anthony Cekada on Baptism of Desire and Salvation Outside the Church

Recently, an article was published by Fr.
Anthony Cekada called Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles. Fr.
Cekada is a “traditionalist” priest who rightly rejects Vatican II but yet
holds the heresy common to almost all today: that those who die as
non-Catholics can be saved. Fr. Cekada is, therefore, a person who rejects the
Catholic dogma that the Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation. Not
surprisingly, Fr. Cekada is also a fierce advocate of baptism of desire
(although, as I just said, Fr. Cekada holds that members of false religions who
don’t even desire baptism can be saved). When I asked him via e-mail
whether he agreed with the common teaching of heretical, 20th century pre-Vatican II
theologians that souls can be saved “outside the Church” by “invincible
ignorance,” he conveniently chose not to respond. That is simply because he does
believe that those who die in non-Catholic religions can be saved and he
rejects the defined dogma which declares that they cannot.

In his article, Baptism of Desire and
Theological Principles, Fr. Cekada attempts to prove that Catholics are
bound by the “common” teaching of theologians, according to Pope Pius IX in Tuas
Libenter. He further argues that baptism of desire was the “common”
teaching of theologians before Vatican II; and he concludes that Catholics are,
therefore, bound to believe in baptism of desire under pain of mortal sin.
Since his article has had some influence on traditional Catholics, and the
subject matter ties in directly to a central point under discussion in this document
(namely, the universal and constant teaching on the necessity of rebirth of
water and the Spirit based on John 3:5), I feel it necessary to show how
Fr. Cekada has completely perverted the very principles he applies, has misled
his readership and is contradicted by the authorities he quotes.

TUAS
LIBENTER AND THE SO-CALLED “COMMON” CONSENT OF THEOLOGIANS

In his letter to the Archbishop of
Munich (Tuas Libenter), upon which Fr. Cekada bases his argument, Pope
Pius IX says that Catholic writers are bound by those matters which, though not
taught by express decree of the Roman See, are nevertheless taught by the
ordinary and universal Magisterium as divinely revealed and held by theologians
in universal and constant agreement.

Pope Pius IX, Tuas
Libenter, Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, Dec. 21, 1863: “For, even if it were a
matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine
faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which
have been defined by express decrees of ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman
Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters
which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of
the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal
and constant[universali et constanti]consent are held by
Catholic theologians to belong to faith.”

As referenced at the beginning of this document,
it was defined as a dogma by the First Vatican Council that the ordinary
and universal magisterium is infallible. In his letter to the Archbishop
of Munich, Pope Pius IX teaches that Catholic writers are bound by those
matters which “are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching
power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore,
by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to
faith.” Notice, the obligation to the opinion of the theologians only
arises from the fact that these matters were already taught as divinely
revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the Church and therefore also held
by universal and constant agreement. In his application of this
teaching in his article, Fr. Cekada conveniently skips over the “universal”
requirement. Fr. Cekada also uses the word “common” instead of the properly
translated, “universal and constant.”

Fr. Anthony
Cekada, Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles, 1. General
Principle: “All Catholics are obliged to adhere to a teaching if Catholic
theologians hold it by common consent, or hold it as de fide, or
Catholic doctrine, or theologically certain.”

Notice how Fr. Cekada conveniently ignores
the requirement stipulated by Pope Pius IX that the theologians must be in “universal
and constant agreement”! If he had faithfully applied the “universal” part of
it throughout his article, the attentive and sincere reader would easily have
picked up the flaw in his feeble argumentation. And is baptism of desire
something that has been held by universal and constant agreement?
Most certainly not; in fact, it is just the opposite.

Fr. William
Jurgens: “If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that
the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy
Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely,
it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the
obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But
the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so
constant as to constitute revelation.”

Both Council of Trent and Vatican I has infallibly defined
that we must believe what the unanimous consent of the Fathers
believe. With Fathers means the Church Fathers and not later
theologians or saints' private opinions that are not from the patristic period.

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican
Council, Session 2, January 6th, 1870, ex cathedra: “I, Pius, bishop of the
Catholic Church, with firm faith... accept Sacred Scripture according to
that sense which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to
judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures; nor will
I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous
consent of the Fathers.”

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent,
Session 4, AD 1546, ex cathedra: “Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant
spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian
doctrine,--wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to
interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy
mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of
the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the
unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were
never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners [to come or be in
conflict with; go or act against; deny or oppose] shall be made known by their
Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.”

As we can see by the quote of Fr. William
Jurgens, exactly the opposite of baptism of desire is what is taught in
universal and constant agreement that must be believed as de fide! It
is the universal and constant teaching of Catholic Fathers and theologians
since the beginning that absolutely no one can be saved without water baptism.
Thus, the very principle that Fr. Cekada attempts to apply in favor of baptism
of desire is used against it.

Fr. Anthony
Cekada, Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles, 2. Particular
Fact: “But, Catholic theologians do hold the teaching on baptism of
desire and baptism of blood by common consent, or hold it as de fide,
or Catholic doctrine, or theologically certain. 3. Conclusion(1
+ 2): Therefore, all Catholics are obliged to adhere to the teaching on baptism
of desire and baptism of blood.”

The fact that baptism of desire did become a
common and almost unanimous error after the patristic period and
especially among 20th century
“theologians” means nothing, which is why Pope Pius IX included that important
word “universal consent of the Fathers” in the First Vatican Council,
Session 2 and “universal” in Tuas Libenter, which Fr. Cekada
conveniently ignores.

The Catholic Encyclopedia,
Vol. 9, “Limbo,” p. 257: “After enjoying several centuries of undisputed
supremacy, St. Augustine’s teaching on original sin was first successfully
challenged by St. Anselm, who maintained that it was not concupiscence, but the
privation of original justice, that constituted the essence of inherited sin. On
the special question, however, of the punishment of original sin after death, St.
Anselm was at one with St. Augustine in holding that unbaptized infants share
in the positive sufferings of the damned; and Abelard was the first to rebel
against the severity of the Augustinian tradition on this point.”

The Catholic Encyclopediais
saying here that basically from the time of Augustine (4th century) to Abelard (12th century) it was the common and almost
unanimous teaching of theologians that unbaptized infants suffer the fires of
Hell after death, a position that was later condemned by Pope Pius VI. This
proves that the “common” error even during the patriastic period outside of
unanimity, or of any other one period (or even for hundreds of years) is not
the universal, unanimous and constant teaching of the
Church from the beginning. This point alone totally blows Fr. Cekada’s
thesis away.

Furthermore, the heresy that one can be
saved “outside” the Church by “invincible ignorance” was also the common
and almost unanimous teaching at the beginning of the 20th Century, thus proving again that the common
teaching (or common error) at any particular time does not replace the universal
and constant teaching of all Catholic Fathers or theologians throughout
history on the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation.

Catechism of
the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection,
p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the
Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach
all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who
were to be saved.”

Notice here that the Catechism of Trent
is inculcating that the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation is
the unanimous teaching of theologians. But that is the very position
which Fr. Cekada’s article – in the name of the “common” consent of theologians
– says is a mortal sin to hold! One can easily see from these facts that
Fr. Cekada has erred in a major way and is actually completely wrong: the universal
and constant teaching of theologians, as Fr. Jurgens and the Catechism of
Trent say, is the very position he is condemning! And his error
stems from his false conclusion that the “common” errors of one time (a time of
widespread heresy and modernism and apostasy leading up to Vatican II: the
period between approx. 1880 and 1960) constitute the universal and constant
teaching of Catholic theologians of all times, which is clearly false. In fact,
it is ridiculous. And this is why in his discussion of this issue he
conveniently dropped the word “universal” from the requirement, which would
have made his invalid reasoning all the more easy to detect.

In fact, if the “common” error of
theologians at a particular time constituted a teaching of the Church that one
is bound to follow, then all Catholics would be bound by the heresy of
religious liberty (besides all the others) taught at Vatican II, since this has
been accepted by “common” consent of the so-called “Catholic theologians” since
Vatican II. And this is why Fr. Cekada offers the following pitiful response to
that very objection to his quite obviously false thesis.

Fr. Anthony
Cekada, Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles, Answering the
Objection about Vatican II – D. Theologians and Vatican II: “The
group of European modernist theologians primarily responsible for the
Vatican II errors were enemies of traditional scholastic theology and
had been censured or silenced by church authority: Murray, Schillebeeckx,
Congar, de Lubac, Teilhard, etc. When the strictures were removed under John
XXIII, they were able to spread their errors freely. If anything, the fact that
they had been previously silenced demonstrates the Church’s vigilance against
error in the writings of her theologians.”

Oh, I see, because Fr. Cekada deems that the
“theologians” who were “primarily responsible” for Vatican II were “European
Modernists” and “enemies of traditional scholastic theology,” he is free to
dump his entire thesis that a Catholic is bound to follow the “common” consent
of theologians under pain of mortal sin. How convenient! The reader should
easily see that by such a statement Fr. Cekada is arguing hypocritically and
completely refuting himself. Fr. Cekada must be quite dedicated to his heresy
to argue in such a contradictory fashion. Furthermore, his claim that because a
few of the more radical of the Vatican II theologians were silenced, he is
therefore free to reject the common consent of “theologians” after Vatican II,
is a hopeless argument; for the fact remains that the “common” consent of
purported “Catholic” theologians since Vatican II was to endorse Vatican II’s
heretical documents, even if a few of the more radical ones were timidly
“silenced” before Vatican II.

Hence, as anyone with eyes to see can see,
if one is free to reject the “common” consent of Vatican II theologians because
one deems them “enemies of traditional scholastic theology,” then one can just
as well dump the fallible, contradictory teaching of the pre-Vatican II
theologians on baptism of desire, since it is patently contrary to “traditional
dogmatic theology” (viz., the defined dogma on the necessity of
rebirth of water and the Spirit), not to mention the universal Tradition of
the Church from the beginning on John 3:5.

Furthermore, if a Catholic were bound to
follow the “common” teaching of theologians at a particular time, and had lived
during the Arian period in the 4th century,
then one would have been bound by the Arian heresy (the denial of the Divinity
of Jesus Christ), since this was not only the
“common” teaching of alleged “Catholic” theologians and Bishops at the time,
but almost the unanimous teaching.

Fr. William
Jurgens: “At one point in the Church’s history, only a few years before
Gregory’s [Nazianz] present preaching (+380 A.D.), perhaps the number of
Catholic bishops in possession of sees, as opposed to Arian bishops in
possession of sees, was no greater than something between 1% and 3% of the
total. Had doctrine been determined by popularity, today we should all
be deniers of Christ and opponents of the Spirit.”

Fr. William
Jurgens: “In the time of the Emperor Valens (4th century), Basil was virtually the only orthodox Bishop in
all the East who succeeded in retaining charge of his see… If it has no other
importance for modern man, a knowledge of the history of Arianism should
demonstrate at least that the Catholic Church takes no account of popularity
and numbers in shaping and maintaining doctrine: else, we should long
since have had to abandon Basil and Hilary and Athanasius and Liberius and
Ossius and call ourselves after Arius.”

Fr. Cekada’s argument, in fact, would rule
out the possibility of a Great Apostasy, and would render Our Lord’s words in
Luke 18:8 (When the Son of Man returns do you think He will find faith on
earth?) impossible, since all Catholics would always be bound to follow
what the majority of “Catholic” theologians say, no matter how heretical it is.
Needless to say, Fr. Cekada’s argument is completely absurd, as is obvious to
the sincere Catholic with common sense.

Fr. Anthony
Cekada, Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles, B. Proof of the
Thesis. “1. Major Premise. The consent of theologians in matters of
faith and morals is so intimately connected with the teaching Church that an
error in the consensus of theologians would necessarily lead the whole Church
into error. 2. Minor Premise. But the whole Church cannot err in
faith and morals. (The Church is infallible) 3. Conclusion. The
consensus of theologians in matters of faith and morals is a certain criteria
of divine Tradition.”

We have seen how this claim of Fr. Cekada,
in his attempt to apply it to “baptism of desire,” is false, illogical,
historically ridiculous and easily refuted. I will quote Pope Pius XII again,
who himself contradicts the above assertion.

Pope Pius XII, Humani
generis (# 21), Aug. 12, 1950: “This deposit of faith our Divine
Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not
even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the
Church.’”

And what is ironic and very important is
that the fallible theologians Fr. Cekada references in his article not only
disagree among themselves about whether this so-called “baptism of desire” is
of the Faith or merely close to the Faith, but the “theologians” he cites
actually prove the position of those who reject the false doctrine of baptism
of desire.

THE
VERY “THEOLOGIANS” HE BRINGS FORWARD ALSO DISPROVE HIS POSITION

One of the 25 pre-Vatican II theologians
that Fr. Cekada references in his article on Baptism of Desire and
Theological Principles is the German theologian Dr. Ludwig Ott, whose book Fundamentals
of Catholic Dogma is somewhat popular in traditional Catholic circles. Dr.
Ott was a modernist heretic who believed in baptism of desire and salvation
“outside” the Church, as is stated clearly in his book. But despite
this, in his quarter-million-word compendium (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma),
Dr. Ott is forced to admit the following based on the overwhelming testimony of
Catholic Tradition and defined dogma.

Dr. Ludwig Ott,
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, The Necessity of Baptism, p. 354: “1.
Necessity of Baptism for Salvation- Baptism by water (Baptismus
Fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all
men without exception, for salvation. (de fide.)”

Excuse me, but this de fide (i.e., of
the Faith) teaching of the Catholic Church on the absolute necessity of water
baptism for all without exception for salvation is precisely why
Catholics must reject the false doctrine of “baptism of desire”! Baptism of
desire is directly contrary to the above de fide teaching of the Church:
baptism of desire is the idea that baptism of water is not necessary for all
men without exception for salvation!

But Fr. Cekada, the illogical heretic, would
have us believe that based on the contradictory testimony of Ludwig Ott (and
others) we are supposed to accept baptism of desire under pain of mortal
sin, when Dr. Ludwig Ott himself is affirming that the absolute necessity of
water baptism for all without exception is de fide – the very truth
which compels one to reject baptism of desire! Thus, Fr. Cekada is simply
refuted and condemned by the testimony of the very authorities he brings
forward.

The fact that Dr. Ludwig Ott immediately
proceeds to contradict the above statement on the absolute necessity of water
baptism without exception in his book, and proceeds to teach baptism of
desire and blood on the very same page – which ideas he interestingly
does not term de fide (of the Faith) but close to the Faith – simply
shows that the common error of baptism of desire, that became almost unanimous
among “theologians” such as Ott in the late 19th and early 20th century,
is simply not in harmony with the universal, constant (and de fide)
teaching of the Church and the Fathers on the absolute necessity of water
baptism without exception for salvation.

Another example would be the famous book, The
Catechism Explained, by Fr. Spirago and Fr. Clarke. Like Dr. Ott’s
book, The Catechism Explained taught baptism of desire and that there is
salvation “outside” the Church. Yet despite this fact, these “theologians”
(Frs. Spirago and Clarke) were compelled to admit the following truth, which is
confessed universally by all purported Catholic theologians.

Fr. Francis
Spirago and Fr. Richard Clarke, The Catechism Explained, 1899, Baptism:
“3. BAPTISM IS INDISPENSABLY NECESSARY TO SALVATION. Hence children
who die unbaptized cannot enter heaven. Our Lord says: ‘Unless a man be born
again of water and of the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of
heaven’ (John 3:5). He makes no exception, not even in the case
of infants… Baptism is no less indispensable in the spiritual order than water
in the natural order…”

This shows, again, how the universal
teaching of theologians is that baptism of water is absolutely necessary for
salvation, and that Our Lord’s words in John 3:5 have no exceptions. The fact
that Frs. Spirago and Clarke proceed to contradict this statement and teach
baptism of desire (and the heresy of salvation “outside” the Church) just shows
their own inconsistency – and the inconsistency of all who favor baptism of
desire.

How can water baptism be indispensably
necessary for salvation (as they just told us), if the simple desire for it is
sufficient in its place? That is a direct contradiction. And anyone who says
that it is not simply denies the law of non-contradiction. One cannot say that:

Water
Baptism is indispensably necessary for salvation

And at the same time….

Water
Baptism is not indispensably necessary for salvation (desire can replace it)

These two statements are contradictory, but
this is exactly what people were being taught all over the world in catechisms
since the late 1800’s. They were being taught the truth (1st proposition), while
simultaneously they were taught the opposite of that truth (2nd proposition). This shows that
even in the time of growing apostasy, heresy and modernism that was the period
from approximately 1850 to 1950, all theologians and catechisms still
affirmed the universally taught truth on the absolute necessity of water
baptism for salvation, even though they did not remain consistent with it.

THEOLOGIANS ARE
ALSO UNANIMOUS THAT ONLY THE WATER BAPTIZED ARE PART OF THE CATHOLICCHURCH!

Additionally devastating to Fr. Cekada’s
article is the fact that even the theologians that he references in favor of
baptism of desire affirm that it is of the Faith that only the water
baptized are part of the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no
salvation. I quote Dr. Ludwig Ott again, in his Fundamentals of Catholic
Dogma.

Dr. Ludwig Ott,
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Membership in the Church, p. 309: “3. Among
the members of the Church are not to be counted: a) The unbaptized…
The so-called blood Baptism and the Baptism of desire, it is true, replace
Baptism by water (sic) in so far as the communication of grace is concerned, but
do not effect incorporation into the Church… Catechumens are not to be
counted among the members of the Church… The Church claims no jurisdiction
over them (D 895). The Fathers draw a sharp line of separation between
Catechumens and ‘the faithful.’”

Here we see Dr. Ludwig Ott, one of the
“theologians” cited by Fr. Cekada to “prove” baptism of desire, clearly
affirming the universal Catholic teaching that only water baptized persons are
inside the Church. Dr. Ott has no problem admitting this since he believes in
salvation “outside” the Church.

But there are three very important
admissions here by Dr. Ott, each relating, ironically, to the three most
famous dogmatic definitions on Outside the Church There is No Salvation.

1) The most expansive definition on Outside
the Church There is No Salvation was from Pope Eugene IV at the Council of
Florence. In this definition, Pope Eugene IV defined infallibly that it is
necessary to be inside the unity of the ecclesiastical body, which means that
it is necessary to be incorporated into the ecclesiastical body(ecclesiastici
corporis).

Pope Eugene IV,
Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of
those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews,
heretics and schismatics can become participants in eternal life, but they will
depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’
[Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the flock;
and that the unity of this ecclesiastical body (ecclesiastici
corporis) is so strong that only for those who abide in it
are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do
fasts, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of a Christian
soldier produce eternal rewards. No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced,
even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has
persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Please focus on the necessity of incorporation
into the ecclesiastici corporis (the ecclesiastical body). Then
notice that in the quotation above from Dr. Ott, he admits that “baptism of
desire” and “baptism of blood” do not effect incorporation – that is to
say, they do not bring one into the Mystici Corporis (the
Mystical Body)!

Dr. Ludwig Ott,
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Membership in the Church, p. 309: “3.
The so-called blood Baptism and the Baptism of desire, it is true, replace
Baptism by water (sic) in so far as the communication of grace is concerned, but
do not effect incorporation into the Church…’”

By this statement, Dr. Ott is admitting that
“baptism of desire” and “baptism of blood” are not compatible with Pope Eugene
IV’s infallible definition on the absolute necessity of incorporation
into the ecclesiastical Body (ecclesiastici corporis) for salvation.
Thus, Dr. Ott proves that baptism of desire/blood cannot be true and is
actually contrary to dogma.

2) The second infallible definition on
Outside the Church There is No Salvation was from Pope Boniface VIII in the
Bull Unam Sanctam. In this definition, Pope Boniface VIII defined
infallibly that it is necessary for every human creature to be entirely subject
to the Roman Pontiff (and therefore the Catholic Church) for salvation.

Pope Boniface
VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra: “Furthermore,
we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they
by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman
Pontiff.”

I pointed out the fact that without water
baptism no one is a subject of the Church or the Roman Pontiff. I quoted
the Council of Trent to prove the point.

Pope Julius
III, Council of Trent, On the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance,
Sess. 14, Chap. 2, ex cathedra: “… the Church exercises
judgment on no one who has not previously entered it by the gate of baptism.
For what have I to do with those who are without (1 Cor. 5:12), says the
Apostle. It is otherwise with those of the household of the faith, whom Christ
the Lord by the laver of baptism has once made ‘members of his own body’ (1
Cor. 12:13).”(Denz. 895)

Now, notice how Dr. Ott admits that “baptism
of desire” and “baptism of blood” neither make one a subject nor place one
under the jurisdiction of the Church!

Dr. Ludwig Ott,
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Membership in the Church, p. 309: “3.
Among the members of the Church are not to be counted: a) The unbaptized… Catechumens
are not to be counted among the members of the Church… The Church
claims no jurisdiction over them (D 895).’”

By this statement, Dr. Ott is admitting that
“baptism of desire” and “baptism of blood” are not compatible with Pope
Boniface VIII’s infallible definition on the absolute necessity of
subjection to the Church and the Roman Pontiff for salvation! Dr. Ott is
showing us that baptism of desire/blood cannot be true (and that it is, in
fact, contrary to dogma), and he is even referencing the very decree that I
referenced (D. 895 from Trent) to prove the point!

3) The first infallible definition on
Outside the Church There is No Salvation was from Pope Innocent III at the Fourth
Lateran Council. In this definition, Pope Innocent III defined infallibly
that the Catholic Church is a Church of “the faithful” and that outside of this
“faithful” no one at all is saved.

Pope Innocent
III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra:
“There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of
which nobody at all is saved…”

I pointed out how Catholic Tradition,
Catholic Liturgy and all of the fathers teach that only the water baptized are
part of the faithful. Now, notice how in the quotation cited above from Dr.
Ott, he admits that “baptism of desire” and “baptism of blood” do not make
one part of the faithful! I quote it again:

Dr. Ludwig Ott,
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Membership in the Church, p. 309: “3.
Catechumens are not to be counted among the members of the Church… The Church
claims no jurisdiction over them (D 895). The Fathers draw a sharp line of
separation between Catechumens and ‘the faithful.’”

By this statement, Dr. Ott is admitting that
“baptism of desire” and “baptism of blood” are not compatible with Pope
Innocent III’s infallible definition on the absolute necessity of belonging to
“the faithful” for salvation!

Therefore, in just one paragraph, Dr. Ott
makes at least three admissions, based on defined Catholic dogma, which show
that baptism of desire and baptism of blood are not compatible with Catholic
teaching; and he makes these admissions on points that are central to the
three most famous infallible definitions on Outside the Church There is
No Salvation!

And this rather crucial series of admissions
by Dr. Ott – quite devastating to the theory of baptism of desire – brings me
to my next point: the theologians, based on the testimony of Tradition and
Catholic teaching, all define the Catholic Church the same way – a union of
faith and sacraments.

THEOLOGIANS
UNANIMOUSLY DEFINE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS A UNION OF SACRAMENTS – THE
TESTIMONY OF ST. ROBERT BELLARMINE, ST. FRANCIS DE SALES, THE CATECHISM OF
TRENT AND ALL THEOLOGIANS

Saint Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the
Church, has given a famous definition of the Catholic Church. St. Robert
Bellarmine’s formula is recognized by many as the most precise scholastic
definition of the Church to this day.

St. Robert
Bellarmine (16th century):
"The Church is one, not twofold, and this one true
[Catholic] Church is the assembly of men united in the profession of the
same Christian faith and in the communion of the same sacraments, under
the rule of legitimate pastors, and in particular, that of the one Vicar of
Christ on earth, the Roman Pontiff. The first part excludes all infidels, those
who were never in the Church such as Jews, Turks, and pagans, or those who once
were in it and later fell away, like the heretics and apostates. The second
part excludes the catechumens and excommunicated, since the former
are not admitted to the sacraments and the latter are excluded from
them…"

Here we see the definition of the Church which
is accepted by all theologians: a union of faith and sacraments.
According to this definition of the Church, there can be no baptism of
desire because those who have not received any of the sacraments (the
unbaptized, including unbaptized catechumens) don’t share in the unity of the
sacraments and therefore are not part of the Catholic Church. Could
anything be more simple and clear?

But it is a fact, which may surprise some,
that St. Robert Bellarmine did not remain consistent with his definition of the
Church above. He actually adopted the false idea of baptism of desire, which
became somewhat widespread among theologians in the late middle ages, as I
discussed in the section on the history of baptism of desire.
But in adopting the false idea of baptism of desire, St. Robert simply failed
to remain consistent with his own definition of the Church above, as well as
the unanimous definition of theologians on the Church.

But this was not the only issue on which St.
Robert did not remain entirely consistent; he failed to remain consistent in
his struggle with the true teaching on Limbo, as The Catholic Encyclopedia
points out.

The Catholic
Encyclopedia, Vol. 9, 1910, “Limbo,” p. 258:
“It is clear that Bellarmine found the situation [on Limbo] embarrassing,
being unwilling, as he was, to admit that St. Thomas and the Schoolmen
generally were in conflict with what St. Augustine and other Fathers
considered to be de fide[on Limbo], and what the Council of
Florence seemed to have taught definitively.”

Here we see again that the fathers, doctors
and saints, including Robert Bellarmine, actually contradicted themselves on
Limbo, even what some of them held to be de fide. This again shows us
why Catholics don’t form definite doctrinal conclusions from the teaching of
saints, including St. Robert Bellarmine. Catholics form definite doctrinal
conclusions from Catholic dogma, and the teaching of saints only when it is
in line with dogma. And St. Robert Bellarmine’s definition of the Church
above, which excludes all unbaptized persons from the Catholic Church, is
consistent with dogma; his statements on baptism of desire are not.

Pope Boniface
VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra: “… the
one mystical body … And in this, ‘one Lord, one faith, one baptism’
(Eph. 4:5). Certainly Noe had one ark at the time of the flood, prefiguring
one Church… outside which we read that all living things on the earth were
destroyed… which body he called the ‘Only one’ namely, the Church, because
of the unity of the spouse, the faith, the
sacraments, and the charity of the Church.
”

Here we see that Pope Boniface VIII defined
as a dogma that the Church is a union of sacraments. The Catholic Church is
infallibly defined as a union of sacraments also by Pope Eugene IV.

Pope Eugene IV,
Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims… that
the unity of this ecclesiastical body (ecclesiastici corporis)is
so strongthat only for those who
abide in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefitfor
salvation, and do fasts, almsgiving, and other
functions of piety and exercises of a Christian soldier produce eternal rewards.
No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the
name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and
unity of the Catholic Church.”

The obvious meaning and sense of this
dogmatic text is that the Catholic Church is an ecclesiastical Body and a union
of sacraments, a union “so strong.” This is the truth confessed by all
theologians. St. Francis De Sales teaches the exact same truth.

St. Francis De
Sales, Doctor of the Church: “The Church is a holy university or general
company of men united and collected together in the profession of one same
Christian faith; in the participation of the same sacraments…”

Here we see that St. Francis De Sales
repeats the same truth and defines the Church the same way. This is how everybody
defines the Church! The Catechism of the Council of Trent affirms the
same teaching:

Catechism of
the Council of Trent, The Members of the Church Militant, pp. 99-100: “The
Church militant is composed of two classes of persons, the good and the
bad, both professing the same faith and partaking of the same sacraments…”

Is any teaching more consistent? The
Catechism of Trent concludes:

Catechism of
the Council of Trent, p. 159: “In the character impressed by Baptism,
both effects are exemplified. By it we are qualified to receive the other
Sacraments, and the Christian is distinguished from those who do not profess
the faith.”

So again, we see how baptism of desire
advocates, such as Fr. Cekada, are completely wrong and actually pervert
the truth when they assert that the teaching of theologians binds one to
“baptism of desire.” It is exactly the opposite. The unanimous teaching of
theologians contradicts the false doctrine of baptism of desire, by
defining the Church as only those who have received the sacraments, which
definition is also a dogma (Eugene IV; Boniface VIII, de fide).
Catholics are not bound, and in fact must reject, the fallible
statements and speculations of men, however great, such as St. Robert
Bellarmine, when they are not in harmony with Catholic dogma, not to mention
when they contradict the very principles they elsewhere affirm.

And this is precisely why St. Robert
Bellarmine was at a complete loss to cogently explain the idea of
“baptism of desire” when he had already defined the Catholic Church as a body
excluding all the unbaptized. He failed miserably in attempting to explain how
catechumens can be saved when only baptized persons are part of the Catholic
Church.

St. Robert
Bellarmine, De Ecclesia Militante: “Concerning catechumens there is a
greater difficulty, because they are faithful [have the faith] and can be
saved if they die in this state, and yet outside the Church no one is saved…
the catechumens are in the Church, though not in actual fact, yet
at least in resolution, therefore they can be saved…”

Notice the difficulty St. Robert encounters
in trying to explain baptism of desire; he immediately has to compromise and
contradict his own definition of the Church.

St. Robert
Bellarmine (16th century):
"The Church is one, not twofold, and this one true [Catholic]
Church is the assembly of men united in the profession of the same
Christian faith and in the communion of the same sacraments, under the
rule of legitimate pastors, and in particular, that of the one Vicar of Christ
on earth, the Roman Pontiff. First part excludes all infidels, those who were
never in the Church such as Jews, Turks, and pagans, or those who once were in
it and later fell away, like the heretics and apostates. The second part
excludes the catechumens and excommunicated, since the former are
not admitted to the sacraments and the latter are excluded from them…"

First, St. Robert’s
“difficulty” in attempting to explain his (fallible) position that catechumens
can be saved, when catechumens are excluded from the Church by his own
definition, is simply because the idea that an unbaptized person can be part of
the Church is found nowhere in any council or statement from the Papal
Magisterium. The Catholic Church has exclusively held and taught that only
those who have received the Sacrament of Baptism are part of the Church and
no dogmatic decree has ever taught anything else.

And this is why St. Robert is constrained to
admit that catechumens are not actually inside the Church, but he argues
that they can be saved by being in it in resolution, but not in fact. (Note:
St. Robert was only applying this idea to catechumens, not pagans, heretics and
schismatics, as our Modernists today love to assert). But contrary to St.
Robert’s fallible and false assertion that catechumens can be saved by being in
the Church “not in actual fact, yet at least in resolution,” it
is defined that one must be in actual fact part of the Church. It is defined
that one must be “in the bosom and unity” (Eugene IV); that one must be
incorporated into the “ecclesiastical body” (Eugene IV); that one must be
“entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff” (Boniface VIII); that one must be in
the union of “sacraments” and “the faithful” (Eugene VI; Boniface VIII;
Innocent III). And these things only come with water baptism, as attested to by
St. Robert’s own definition of the Church. But in trying to explain the
unexplainable (how baptism of desire is compatible with Catholic dogma), and in
trying to defend the indefensible (how unbaptized catechumens can be in a
Church which is defined by a union of sacraments), St. Robert contradicted
these principles and made a mistake.

Second, in
attempting to substantiate his erroneous belief in baptism of desire, St.
Robert says that catechumens are “faithful.” This is contrary to the fathers
and the teaching of Traditional Catholic Liturgy since apostolic times, which
excluded catechumens from “the faithful”. It is also contrary to the ready
admissions of baptism of desire advocates such as Ludwig Ott, which I’ve
already quoted.

Dr. Ludwig Ott,
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Membership in the Church, p. 309: “3.
Catechumens are not to be counted among the members of the Church… The Church
claims no jurisdiction over them (D 895). The Fathers draw a sharp line
of separation between Catechumens and ‘the faithful.’”

Bynow the
reader should again be discovering the theme which I’ve been showing
throughout this extensive examination of the history of the baptism of desire
issue: that baptism of desire is a fallible, erroneous tradition of man, which
has never been taught by the Papal Magisterium, which has gained momentum based
on the fallible and flawed passages of some nevertheless great men, who
contradicted themselves and violated their own principles in trying to explain
it, while almost always making other errors in the same documents.

In fact, St. Robert’s statement that
catechumens are “faithful” also contradicts the Catechism of the Council of
Trent.

Catechism of
the Council of Trent, Communion of Sacraments, p. 110: “The fruit
of all the sacraments is common to all the faithful, and these
sacraments, particularly baptism, the door, as it were, by which we are
admitted into the Church, are so many sacred bonds which bind them and unite
them to Christ.”

This means that those who haven’t received
the sacraments are not part of the “faithful,” again contrary to what
Bellarmine asserted in his admittedly “difficult” attempt to reconcile the
false idea of baptism of desire with his own definition of the Catholic Church,
which excluded all the unbaptized. When saints enter into “difficult” attempts
to explain speculative things that are not clearly taught by the Church they
are bound to make mistakes. And so Catholics must not follow St. Robert in this
“difficult” (or rather, impossible) attempt to explain baptism of desire, but
rather they should follow St. Gregory Nazianz (Doctor of the Church), who
stated regarding the idea that one can reckon as baptized him who desired
baptism but did not receive it, “I cannot see it.”

St. Robert indeed erred on the subject of
baptism of desire, just as he did on Limbo; but what is most important to
remember, as stated already, is this: while the principle of Papal
infallibility was always believed in the Church (expressed from the earliest
times by such phrases as in the apostolic see the Catholic religion has
always been preserved untainted and holy doctrine celebrated), there is no
doubt that after the definition of Papal infallibility at the First Vatican
Council in 1870 there is much more clarity about which documents are
infallible and which are not. St. Robert Bellarmine and others who lived before
1870 did not necessarily have this degree of clarity, which caused many of them
to lessen the distinction, in certain cases, between the infallible decrees of
popes and the fallible teaching of theologians. It also caused them to not
look quite as literally at what the dogma actually declares, but rather at what
they thought the dogma might mean in light of the opinion of popular
theologians of the time.

Catholics who live today can say that they
understand more about Papal Infallibility than the theologians and doctors in
the middle ages all the way down to 1870, and that they possess an advantage in
evaluating this issue not only because they live after the definition of Papal
Infallibility, but also because they can review the entire history of papal
pronouncements of the Church on this issue and see the harmony among them on
the absolute necessity of water baptism.

UNIVERSAL TRADITION ON
BAPTISM AFFIRMED EVEN BY HERETICAL MODERN CATECHISMS

To further illustrate the point that the
absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation is the universal and
constant teaching of all theologians even during the time of the apostasy
and even by those same persons who proceeded to deny this truth, let’s take,
for example, a recent edition of the Baltimore Catechism and the Catechism
attributed to Pope St. Pius X.

The
New St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism,
No. 2, Q. 320: “Why is Baptism necessary for the salvation of all men? A. Baptism
is necessary for the salvation of all men because Christ has said: ‘Unless a
man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of
God.’”

Notice how this edition of the Baltimore
Catechism, which taught the error of baptism of desire to multitudes (as we
will see), reiterates the universal and constant teaching of the Catholic
Church, based on the words of Jesus Christ in John 3:5, that Baptism of
water is necessary for the salvation of all men. The Baltimore Catechism,
therefore, teaches the exact same truth of Faith that has been a constant echo
in Catholic Tradition since the beginning.

Hermas, 140
A.D., quoting Jesus in John 3:5: “They had need to come up through the water,
so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into
the kingdom of God.”

St. Justin the
Martyr, 155 A.D.: “… they are led by us to a place where there is water; and
there they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were
reborn… in the name of God… they receive the washing of water. For Christ said,
‘Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’
The reason for doing this we have learned from the apostles.”

So, contrary to popular belief, those who
reject “baptism of desire” actually follow the teaching of the Baltimore
Catechism on the absolute necessity of water baptism. They don’t, however,
follow the teaching of the fallible Baltimore Catechism when it proceeds
to contradict this truth on the absolute necessity of water baptism for
salvation and teach baptism of desire.

The New St.
Joseph Baltimore Catechism, No. 2, Q. 321: “How can
those be saved who through no fault of their own have not received the
Sacrament of Baptism. A. Those who through no fault of their own have not
received the sacrament of Baptism can be saved through what is called
baptism of blood or baptism of desire.”

This statement blatantly contradicts the
truth taught in Q. 320, that baptism of water is absolutely necessary for
all men to be saved. In the Baltimore Catechism the people have been taught
two directly contradictory notions one after the other:

Baptism
of water is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all;

and…

Baptism
of water is not absolutely necessary for the salvation of all.

Can both be true at the same time? No, they
cannot. As a Catholic, one must follow the first statement, which is in accord
with defined dogma and the universal Tradition since the beginning of the
Church, and is based on the declaration of Christ Himself.

Furthermore, the edition of the Baltimore
Catechism from which I’m quoting also makes the same devastating admissions
which Dr. Ott was compelled to make in his discussion of what the so-called
“baptism of desire” is not.

The New St.
Joseph Baltimore Catechism, No. 2, Q. 321- “However, only
baptism of water actually makes a person a member of the Church. It
(baptism of blood/desire) might be compared to a ladder up which one climbs
into the Bark of Peter, as the Church is often called. Baptism of blood or
desire makes a person a member of the Church in desire. These are the
two lifelines trailing from the sides of the Church to save those who are
outside the Church through no fault of their own.”

Here we see this edition of the Baltimore
Catechism teaching that: 1) Baptism of desire doesn’t make one a member of the
Church; 2) Baptism of desire does make one a member of the Church in desire; 3)
there is salvation outside the Church by baptism of desire and blood.

The first two statements contradict each
other, while the third is direct heresy against the dogma that Outside
the Church no one at all is saved (Pope Innocent III, de fide).
Thus, this edition of the Baltimore Catechism’s explanation of “baptism of
desire” is not only fallible, but directly heretical.

Pope Innocent
III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra:
“There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which
nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and
sacrifice.”

But having taught that baptism of desire
“saves” people “outside” the Church, this version of the Baltimore Catechism
proves the point again that baptism of desire is incompatible with defined
dogma – not to mention its own teaching on the absolute necessity of water baptism
for salvation.

THE CATECHISM ATTRIBUTED TO ST.
PIUS X

The Catechism attributed to Pope St. Pius X
repeats for us the same de fide teaching of the Catholic Church on the
absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation.

The Catechism
of Pope St. Pius X, The Sacraments, “Baptism,” Q. 16: “Q. Is Baptism
necessary to salvation? A. Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation,
for Our Lord has expressly said: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and
the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.’”

So, contrary to popular belief, those who
reject “baptism of desire” actually follow the teaching of the Catechism
attributed to Pope St. Pius X on the absolute necessity of water baptism.
They don’t follow, however, the teaching of this fallible Catechism when
it proceeds to contradict this truth on the absolute necessity of water baptism
for salvation.

The Catechism
of Pope St. Pius X, The Sacraments, “Baptism,” Q. 17: “Q. Can the
absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A. The absence of Baptism
can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an
act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least
implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.”

This again is a total contradiction to what
is stated in Question 16. It should be noted that this catechism, while
attributed to Pope St. Pius X, did not come from his pen and was not
solemnly promulgated by him. There is no Papal Bull from him promulgating
the catechism, so it is just a fallible catechism that went out during his
reign and was given his name. But, even if St. Pius X had himself authored the
above words (which he didn’t), it wouldn’t make a bit of difference to the
points I’ve made. This is because a pope is only infallible when speaking
magisterially (see Papal Infallibility).
This catechism is not infallible because it wasn’t promulgated solemnly from
the Chair of Peter or even specifically by the pope. Further, this catechism is
proven not to be infallible by the fact that it teaches the abominable heresy
that there is salvation “outside” the Church (as I will show)!

But I will first quote where the catechism
affirms the dogma.

The Catechism
of Pope St. Pius X, The Apostles’ Creed, “The Church in Particular,” Q.
27: “Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church? A. No,
no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just
as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a
figure of the Church.”

Here the Catechism attributed to Pope St.
Pius X reaffirms the defined dogma. But it proceeds to deny this dogma just two
questions later!

The Catechism
of Pope St. Pius X, The Apostles’ Creed, “The Church in Particular,” Q.
29: “Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outsidethe
Church, can he be saved? A. If he is outside the Church through no
fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received
Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he
sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best as he can, such a man
is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul
of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.”

Here we see this fallible Catechism word
for word denying the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation! It
teaches that there can be salvation “outside” the Church, which directly denies
the truth it taught to the people in Question 27. This statement is so
heretical, in fact, that it would be repudiated even by most of the crafty
heretics of our day, who know that they cannot say that people are saved
“outside,” so they argue that non-Catholics are not “outside” but are “inside”
somehow. So even those crafty heretics who reject the true meaning of
Outside the Church There is No Salvation would have to admit that the above
statement is heretical!

Further, notice that the catechism
attributed to St. Pius X teaches the heresy that persons can be united to the
“Soul” of the Church, but not the Body. As proven already, the Catholic
Church is a Mystical Body. Those who are not part of the Body are no
part at all.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium
Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “For since the mystical body of Christ, in the
same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together,
it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made
up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever
therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in
communion with Christ its head.”

This discussion on the catechisms should
demonstrate to the reader how the rampant denial of Outside the Church There is
No Salvation and the necessity of Water Baptism has been perpetuated through fallible
texts with imprimaturs and why it has been imbibed today by almost all who
profess to be Catholic. It has been perpetuated by fallible documents and texts
which contradict themselves, which contradict defined dogma, and which teach
heresy, and which – all the while – elsewhere affirm the immutable truths of
the absolute necessity of the Catholic Church and water baptism for salvation.
And this is why Catholics are bound to adhere to infallibly defined dogma,
not fallible catechisms or theologians.

Pope Pius IX, Singulari
Quadem: “For, in truth, when released from
these corporeal chains, ‘we shall see God as He is’ (1 John 3:2), we shall
understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice
are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass
which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with
Catholic teaching, there is ‘one God, one faith, one baptism’ [Eph.
4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.”

Pope Paul III, The
Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacramentof Baptism, ex
cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that
is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

CONCERNING THOSE BAPTIZED VALIDLY AS INFANTS BY MEMBERS OF NON-CATHOLIC
SECTS

The Catholic Church has always
taught that anyone (including a layman or a non-Catholic) can validly baptize
if he adheres to proper matter and form and if he has the intention of doing
what the Church does.

Pope
Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” 1439: “In case of necessity,
however, not only a priest or a deacon, but even a layman or woman, yes even a
pagan and a heretic can baptize, so long as he preserves the form of the Church
and has the intention of doing what the Church does.” (Denzinger 696)

The Church has always taught that
infants baptized in heretical and schismatic churches are made Catholics,
members of the Church and subjects of the Roman Pontiff, even if the people who
baptized them are heretics who are outside the Catholic Church. This is because
the infant, being below the age of reason, cannot be a heretic or schismatic.
He cannot have an impediment which would prevent Baptism from making him a
member of the Church.

Pope
Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 13 on the Sacrament of Baptism: “If
anyone shall say that infants, because they have not actual faith, after
having received baptism are not to be numbered among the faithful… let him
be anathema.”

This means that all baptized
infants wherever they are, even those baptized in heretical non-Catholic
churches by heretical ministers, are made members of the Catholic Church. They
are also made subject to the Roman Pontiff (if there is one). So, at what one
point does this baptized Catholic infant become a non-Catholic – severing his
membership in the Church and subjection to the Roman Pontiff? After the
baptized infant reaches the age of reason, he or she becomes a heretic or a
schismatic and severs his membership in the Church and severs subjection to the
Roman Pontiff when he or she obstinately rejects any teaching
of the Catholic Church or loses Faith in the essential mysteries of the Trinity
and Incarnation.

Pope
Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351: “…We ask: In the first
place whether you and the Church of the Armenians which is obedient to you,
believe that all those who in baptism have received the same Catholic faith,
and afterwards have withdrawn and will withdraw in the future from the
communion of this same Roman Church, which one alone is Catholic, are
schismatic and heretical, if they remain obstinately separated from the faith
of this Roman Church. In the second place, we ask whether you and the
Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside the
faith of this Church, and outside the obedience of the Pope of Rome, can
finally be saved.”

So, one must be clear on these
points: 1) The unbaptized (Jews, Muslims, Mormons, pagans, etc.) must all join
the Catholic Church by receiving valid Baptism and the Catholic Faith or they
will all be lost. 2) Among those who are validly baptized as infants,
they are made Catholics, members of the Church and subjects of the Roman Pontiff
by Baptism. They only sever that membership (which they already possess)
when they obstinately reject any Catholic dogma or believe something contrary
to the essential mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation. In the teaching of
Pope Clement VI above, we see this second point clearly taught: all who receive
the Catholic Faith in Baptism lose that Faith and become schismatic and
heretical if they become “obstinately separated from the
faith of this Roman Church.”

The fact is that all Protestants
who reject the Catholic Church or its dogmas on the sacraments, the Papacy,
etc. have obstinately separated from the Faith of the Roman Church and have
therefore severed their membership in the Church of Christ. The same is true
with the “Eastern Orthodox” who obstinately reject dogmas on the Papacy and
Papal Infallibility. They need to be converted to the Catholic Faith for
salvation.

The baptized children who reach
the age of reason (and become adults) in Protestant, Eastern Schismatic, etc.
church buildings and believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation (the essential
components of the Catholic Faith) and who don’t reject any Catholic dogma
because they don’t know of any other than the Trinity and Incarnation, and
who don’t embrace any positions incompatible with the Catholic faith, Faith in
God, Jesus Christ, the Trinity, the Natural Law (see The Natural Law) or what they know to be clearly taught in Scripture,
WOULD BE CATHOLICS IN A HERETICAL CHURCH BUILDING.

Council
of Elvira, Canon 22, 300 A.D.: “If someone leaves the Catholic Church and
goes over to a heresy, and then returns again, it is determined that
penance is not to be denied to such a one, since he has acknowledged his sin.
Let him do penance, then, for ten years, and after ten years he may come
forward to communion. If, indeed, there were children who were led
astray, since they have not sinned of their own fault, they may be received
without delay.” (The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1: 611n)

This means that the children above
reason who were attending the church of a heretical sect with their parents
were not heretics because they were not obstinately against something they knew
to be taught by the Church! This fact is also true of all people of all ages
who go to a heretical church without being obstinately opposed to any Church
teaching. This is exactly the Catholic position and what the Church has
always taught (as we have seen) – which is that to be a heretic one must obstinately
reject something they know to be taught by God or the Catholic Church.

Canon
1325, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “After the reception of baptism, if anyone,
retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously [or obstinately] denies or
doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic
faith, [such a one] is a heretic.”

Please consult the following
sections to learn what things one can and cannot be ignorant about when it
comes to the Catholic faith, its teachings and dogmas – and concerning whether
such a person is to be considered a Catholic, an unbeliever or a heretic:

Copyright: All videos and articles on our site are free to copy and share for free. Please remember to also include live links to the source of the info.
We are looking for translators who have the skill to make a good translation of important articles for the salvation of souls. We are also in need of translators who can translate Saint Bridget's Revelations into different languages. If you can help us on this important work, please contact us here.
We need your help! We are spending all the time our expenses among things like websites, webhotels, and giving away free material, dvds and books in order to warn people and tell them the truth. So if you like the material and want to help us—and be yourself a sharer—in saving souls, then please make a donation, pray for us and help us spread it in order to help our beloved brothers and sisters who have not found this information yet. If you have been graced by God with the means to do so, please support our work. Any donation that you can give is highly appreciated and much needed! Help us help our beloved brothers' and sisters' souls. Your Support Counts! All for the Glory of God and the salvation of souls! Please click here!
"And whosoever shall give to drink to one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, amen I say to you, he shall not lose his reward." Matthew 10:42